We have some insight into how Trump managed to pull that off. It may be simply because a majority of Republican voters in that state are convinced that President Biden’s win over Trump in 2020 was illegitimate, according to results of CNN’s entrance poll.

After all, it can’t be purely about “the issues,” as we like to say. On immigration, Trump failed to deliver on the wall or solve our broken system while president. On abortion, Trump touts the overturning of Roe v. Wade as his signature accomplishment, but is also signaling he’s not willing to go as far as pro-lifers want. As for the economy, Trump exploded the debt and the deficit, something Republicans are supposed to find problematic. His trade war with China resulted in a huge blow to Iowa farmers, which Trump had to offset by sending them government checks (something Republicans are also supposed to loathe).

The Iowa caucuses weren’t about electability either, apparently. Roughly 40% of caucus-goers prioritized a candidate who “shared their values,” while only 14% said they cared that he or she could beat Biden.

They couldn’t possibly have been about what’s best for the Republican Party. Trump lost the White House, the House and the Senate for the GOP in four short years. Not so much with all the winning.

And they clearly weren’t about morality or character, either. A whopping 72% of Trump voters in Iowa said he was fit for the presidency, even if convicted of a crime.

So, congratulations, Iowa, you’ve fallen for it! You’ve nominated a guy who didn’t deliver on most of his promises the first time, who was handily defeated by Biden, who lost the whole smash for Republicans, and who might just be in prison when the election actually takes place. But at least you’ll be able to sleep at night believing — falsely — that Biden isn’t the actual president. Terrific.

But as commanding as Trump’s lead is — and no one should doubt that millions of other MAGA voters around the country are equally as committed and hoodwinked — it’s worth pointing out that almost half of Republican voters turned out in frigid temperatures to vote for someone other than Trump.

Now, that fact remains utterly meaningless if it continues to be split between Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who finished neck and neck in Iowa, DeSantis in second and Haley in third.

But the voters who want a Trump alternative exist, and DeSantis and Haley are hoping to live another day — or primary — to win them over.

So with Iowa in the rearview mirror, it’s now on to New Hampshire, another small state, unrepresentative of the country’s electorate, with outsized early importance.

There, Trump is also ahead in the polls, but Haley isn’t far behind. DeSantis, on the other hand, is polling in the single digits. More than a month later, it’s on to South Carolina, where Haley and DeSantis are polling second and third, respectively, behind Trump.

So in order to pierce Trump’s seeming inevitability, the race will come down to a battle between two competing factors:

How long can Ron DeSantis go versus how far can Nikki Haley go?

DeSantis’ problems are immediate. New Hampshire and South Carolina aren’t his voters. And he’s running out of money. Can he last on the dwindling fundraising he’s got long enough to make it to more favorable states?

Haley’s problems are more distant. She’s well positioned for good results in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and just announced a huge fundraising haul for Q4 2023. But the map beyond those two states gets harder for Haley, where there are fewer moderates and independents to woo.

It’s hard to say which is the more enviable position to be in — having money problems or map problems — but neither is ideal. DeSantis has to hope for an influx of cash from some very bullish and trusting donors and Haley has to hope DeSantis drops out early enough to give her a chance to be competitive in later states.

How long versus how far.

Of course, it might all be pointless in the end. Nearly 70% of all Republican voters still believe the 2020 election was stolen. If that’s all that’s motivating the majority of the party — as it appeared to be Monday night — it’s safe to say Trump will be their nominee.

Thanks, Iowa.

S.E. Cupp is the host of “S.E. Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN.

Gingrich may be right, but voter turnout in Iowa was down from four years ago and the lowest in more than a decade. Sub-zero temperatures were likely a contributing factor, as might a view by some that Trump had the race in the bag so why go out in freezing conditions? It is also a caution to recall that not every GOP winner of the Iowa caucuses in recent years has won their respective party’s nomination.

In his victory remarks, Trump displayed a rarely seen quality – kindness and praise of his opponents Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Vivek Ramaswamy. Following the vote count, Ramaswamy announced his withdrawal from the campaign and support for Trump.

Trump, who has trafficked in division and name-calling for years, suddenly called for unity in a low- key (for him) victory speech.

Establishment pundits remain shocked over Trump’s continued appeal to a large swath of voters, including an uptick in support among Blacks and Hispanics. People may have short memories but four years isn’t that long ago when one considers gas prices and mortgage rates were lower during the Trump presidency, the U.S. was not involved in foreign wars, inflation was down, and migrants weren’t flooding over our border in record numbers.

It isn’t difficult to understand the reasons Trump continues to have a firm grip on his supporters, despite his rhetoric and legal challenges. They include an establishment that has refused to acknowledge the anger felt by many Americans over a dysfunctional Congress, the $34 trillion debt, and the constant bickering among politicians, though it is largely the fault of we who elect them. They see unequal justice, political agendas instead of addressing the real concerns of voters and what they believe is persecution of Trump by liberal Democrats. Add to the list of outrages felt by Trump supporters who see unequal treatment in the handling of Hunter Biden’s tax issues and in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ hiring of special prosecutor Nathan Wade with whom she has been rumored (by the Trump camp) to have had an affair. Willis has vehemently denied the accusation and showed up in an Atlanta church to blame racism for the criticism directed at her.

In an extraordinary statement, Gingrich said: “Trump is not a candidate. Trump is the leader of a nationwide movement to take back power from the Establishment.” If that sounds like hyperbole, consider the number of states that have approved a convention of states to invoke Article 5 of the Constitution with the goal of enacting term limits and a requirement for a balanced federal budget. That would be 19 states, according to the Convention of States website with other states either having passed the resolution in one legislative chamber or are considering it. Thirty-eight states are needed. A Trump victory might encourage more states to sign on.

Instead of dwelling on Trump’s personality, Washington politicians and the media ought to be examining the reasons behind voter anger and desire to move the country in a different direction. That’s what Trump is promising. It is the reason he won big in Iowa and may run the table in every other primary state.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).

Let’s establish some relevant facts.

On Oct. 7, Iran-backed Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israel, a close American ally, from Gaza. Israel counter-attacked. President Biden repeatedly warned regimes in the region, specifically Iran, not to get involved. On Oct. 24, Secretary of State Antony Blinken vowed America would respond to attacks on American forces “swiftly and decisively.”

Iran didn’t listen (and America didn’t respond swiftly or decisively). Iranian-backed militias attacked American bases in Iraq and Syria. In November, Houthis, an Iranian proxy group which controls parts of Yemen, started launching rocket, drone and missile attacks, on both Israel and on international shipping in the Red Sea with logistical support from Iran.

Houthis claimed they were merely attacking ships trading with Israel, but the attacks were indiscriminate, ensnaring ships with no ties to Israel and dislocating global trade. In December, a U.S. warship shot down three drones in self-defense.

Last week, after intense criticism for failing to make good on his warnings, Biden ordered significant attacks on Houthi assets in Yemen, with assistance from Britain and other allies.

There isn’t room to feast on the banquet of hypocrisies on offer, but let’s nibble on the most obvious. One of the first things Biden did upon taking office was remove the Houthis from the official list of terrorist organizations. He now says they are terrorists.

Many on the right who blistered Biden for dithering are now angry that he didn’t consult with Congress before retaliating. Many on the left, who had no objections to the Obama-Biden administration’s attacks on Libya in 2011, are mad at Biden for attacking a group allied with Hamas.

Globally Israel critics, who make a big show of being supporters of international law, are rallying to the Houthi cause. One chant, heard in New York and London, “Yemen, Yemen make us proud, turn another ship around.” This crowd insists that its animus toward Israel is driven by a passionate commitment to human rights, but seems to have no noticeable objections to Houthi atrocities (or Hamas atrocities), including the Houthis’ restoration of slavery in Yemen.

Anti-Semitism, we’re constantly told, has nothing to do with anti-Zionism. The official slogan of the Houthis is “God is great, death to the U.S., death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam.” You can tell me that “death to Israel” is merely anti-Zionist. But “curse the Jews”?

Perhaps because such hypocrisy is so hard to defend, the substance of opposition to the strikes, at home and abroad, is either to American military “escalation” or to escalation without required congressional approval (or parliamentary approval in the U.K.). Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington) declared, “This is an unacceptable violation of the Constitution. Article 1 requires that military action be authorized by Congress.”

Throughout this crisis, “escalation” has been code for striking back. Even in the immediate hours after Hamas’ butchery, there were demands that Israel not “escalate” by responding. As for America, many opponents of escalation had no problem with Houthi and Iranian “escalation” by indiscriminately attacking global shipping and threatening American interests.

This illustrates the weakness of the constitutional argument. In March 1801, President Jefferson dispatched two-thirds of the U.S. Navy to wage war on the Barbary pirates. He didn’t formally notify Congress until December. As legal historian Robert Turner notes, “the Annals of Congress reveal no expression of concern that the president should first have obtained prior legislative sanction.”

The constitutionally dubious War Powers Act requires congressional authorization for the use of force, except in cases of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed Forces.” Even if, for some tendentious reason, you do not believe the Houthi attacks qualify for the exception, it’s worth remembering they’re just one facet of broader Iranian aggression — and escalation.

I have no objection to getting congressional buy-in, and Biden’s critics have a point: If he was willing to wait this long to respond to the Houthi attacks, he could have consulted with Congress. But that’s the real problem: he shouldn’t have waited this long in the first place.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

After watching too many of the Republican non-debates and the insults each of the candidates (and former candidates) have thrown at each other, along with the especially demeaning characterizations by Donald Trump of his rivals, it’s time for a dose of reality. For the sake of accuracy and truth the Republican Party should exchange its elephant symbol for one that is more reflective of today’s GOP.

One candidate might be Triumph the Insult Comic Dog.

Consider some of the puppet’s best insult lines as you imagine them being directed at a Republican presidential candidate. To an overweight man, Triumph said: “Are you a separatist? … Maybe you should try separating yourself from donuts first.”

Addressing a French person who spoke no English, Triumph said: “Pardon me, I only know your basic French expressions like ‘I surrender.’”

Speaking to singer Bon Jovi, Triumph said: “So you’re acting now, you’re in a vampire movie, yes? That’s good. Finally, a role that requires you to suck.”

The difference between these comedic taunts, as well as those by the late comics Don Rickles and Rodney Dangerfield and the political insults, is that with the comedians people were usually in on the joke. While sometimes sounding caustic, the comical barbs are meant to produce laughter. Even the targets of the jokes often laughed. That’s different from repeatedly calling your political rival a liar.

Where is the noble rhetoric from campaigns and presidencies past? Why the constant putdowns? Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin and Iran’s ayatollahs don’t get smeared as much as the presidential candidates who revile each other. We’ve regressed from the schoolyard to the barnyard.

John F. Kennedy had some good lines, including:“We can no longer afford to be second best. I want people all over the world to look to the United States again, to feel that we’re on the move, to feel that our high noon is in the future.” And the well-known one from his 1961 Inaugural Address: “Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.”

Ronald Reagan always saw America as“a shining city on a hill” whose best days are ahead of us. When Reagan spoke of his political opponents, he often referred to them as “our friends in the other party.” During a 1984 debate with Walter Mondale, Reagan joked that “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Mondale laughed, seeming to acknowledge the cleverness of the barb. His campaign manager, Bob Beckel, later told me, “Right then we knew we were going to lose the election” because the issue of Reagan’s age (he was 74 at the time) had been laid to rest with that one line.

Here are a few more among many others: “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” — John Quincy Adams.

This from Franklin Roosevelt would be a good one for modern presidential candidates to embrace: “If you treat people right they will treat you right … ninety percent of the time.”

President Harry Truman said: “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Reagan liked the saying enough to have it on his desk.

In modern politics, debating the best way to make America better has been replaced by a war footing. It’s DEFCON 1. Sadly, insults and anger seem to appeal to some voters. The price we are paying for tolerating this behavior is a diminished politics, which can only lead to a diminished and further divided country.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).

The exasperated driver, whose identity is as of yet unknown, had to finally get out of his car in Manhattan and scream at a group of more than 1,000 pro-Palestinian protesters who decided this week that the best way to draw attention to their cause of the fighting in Gaza was to block traffic and access to several bridges and a tunnel in the most populous city in America.

As a mom myself, I can tell you — anyone who came between me and my child wouldn’t get as polite a warning.

“Our aim today was to clog the arteries of New York City to draw attention to the ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people and the people of Gaza,” said Jamil Madbak, the 29-year-old organizer with the Palestinian Youth Movement — the same group that has previously celebrated terrorism against Israel and the murders of innocent Jews.

“American bombs and American-made internationally prohibited chemical weapons are being dropped on Arabs again, financed by American tax dollars and protected by the American media, again. Those in power think they can get away with this, but us being out here every week is our way of saying we won’t let them.”

No word yet on whether this stunt to snarl traffic using the Holland Tunnel and the Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg bridges, was successful in lobbying the Biden administration or Israel to change their course in the war against Hamas in the wake of the terrorist group’s barbaric slaughter of more than a thousand innocent Jews and the kidnapping of hundreds more on Oct. 7.

But it did end in the arrest of more than 320 protesters in New York.

Similar protests blocking access to JFK, LAX, and Chicago O’Hare airports over the holidays — on the busiest travel days of the year — also resulted in dozens of arrests and delays for legions of frustrated travelers who couldn’t get to their flights.

If you’re wondering how these obnoxious, self-important, unserious, and even dangerous antics would be an effective way of eliciting sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians suffering in wartime Gaza, your guess is as good as mine. I’m betting that most weary travelers who couldn’t get to work or missed a flight to see their loved ones aren’t going to be buoyed by the fact that, “Hey, at least it’s for a good cause.”

In the wake of that awful tragedy in October, pro-Palestinian groups like PYM and Students for Justice in Palestine have embarked on misguided and arguably ineffective stunts like these to get their point across and try to bring some favorable attention to their efforts. But harassing unsuspecting bystanders hasn’t done the trick. Nor has it endeared them to anyone but each other.

Nor have the countless videos of young anti-Israel activists tearing down posters of Israeli hostages all over our cities. Nor have the threats against Jewish students on college campuses. Nor have all the strongly worded letters demanding various institutions denounce Israel for the death of their own civilians.

What this all misses is that there are plenty of Americans who are persuadable on this, who simply want peace in Gaza, who are sympathetic to the suffering of the Palestinian people, who might even object to Israel’s political objectives. But holding up their flight or keeping them from their family is itself a version of indiscriminate hostage taking, and that is sure to change no one’s hearts and minds.

Neither is blaming Israel for the murders of its own people, refusing to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist organization, or calling for the genocide of Jews with signs on college campuses like “Holocaust 2.0.”

It’s stuff like this that starts to verge on Westboro Baptist Church territory. When the infamous hate group protests the funerals of gay people and AIDS victims with signs like “God sent the killer” and “God hates f-gs,” it’s hard to imagine that needlessly and heartlessly harassing these grieving people is going to win anyone over to a point of view that is already controversial and offensive to many. And outside of that small group of activists, it just turns everyone else off.

The cause of peace for innocent Palestinians and an end to the war in Gaza is a serious, righteous and good one, at its core. It needs serious voices, and deserves advocates who promote compassion and clarity, not callousness and chaos. But these unserious performances — which range from silly to annoying to deeply offensive — are only hurting that cause.

S.E. Cupp is the host of “S.E. Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN.

A new USA Today/Suffolk University Poll reveals one in five Black voters say they will support a third-party candidate instead of the president. That’s down substantially from the 92% of non-Hispanic Blacks who voted for Biden in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center.

The president’s strategy for shoring up his and Democrats’ most loyal supporters? Telling them their biggest threat is “white supremacy.”

Nothing about the failing schools so many poor and minority children feel trapped in; or violence in big cities that kill many young Black men most weekends and increasingly during the week; or the disproportionate abortion rate among Black women that has kept their percentage of the population mostly stagnant; or the necessity of putting more Black fathers in homes to provide loving disciple to their children.

Biden has a long history of using race as a political weapon while doing little to improve the lives of Black Americans.

Speaking at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where in 2015 a white gunman shot and killed nine members of a Bible study, Biden again demonstrated his insincerity about race by making statements that have been proven false.

He claimed to have been a “civil rights activist.” He wasn’t. He claimed to have “spent more time in the Bethel AME Church in Wilmington, Delaware, than most people I know, Black or white.” He hasn’t. He also claimed that church was “where I started a civil rights movement.” He didn’t.

As a New York Post editorial noted, “(Biden has) pushed such baloney time and again.” He has claimed to have been arrested during civil rights demonstrations and while on the way to see Nelson Mandela in prison. Neither is true.

Biden claimed to have persuaded segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond to vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Wrong on two counts. Thurmond did not vote for the act and Biden was not in the Senate in 1964.

There was also his 2006 remark: “You cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” In 2020, he said if Blacks didn’t vote for him “you ain’t Black.” In 2010, he warmly eulogized Sen. Robert Byrd, a former Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan, saying he was “one of my mentors” and that “the Senate is a lesser place for his going.” As early as 1977, Biden said that forced busing to desegregate schools would cause his children to “grow up in a racial jungle.” In 2007, he referred to Barack Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean.”

So many more examples, but not enough space.

Democrats have played the race card for decades, even blaming poor performances (see former Harvard President Claudine Gay) on bigotry, not plagiarism and a failure to denounce antisemitic campus demonstrations. Their talk has been cheap and the results negligible. One wonders why so many still vote for them given their record. White Democrats only show up in Black churches at election time and are not seen for another two or four years. Shouldn’t that tell them something?

White supremacy is a minority view. Christians call it a sin. There are no pure-bred people. We are all mixed up in the great gene pool of life, as Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. has brilliantly demonstrated in several PBS programs on African American lives. To hate another person because of their race is to hate a part of one’s self.

Given the declining poll numbers for Biden, among especially young Black voters, it would appear they are starting to figure out how Democrats have duped them for decades. Biden’s out-of-touch speech in Charleston is likely to do little to improve his favorability among their party’s once solid voting bloc.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).

The primary stated reason McCarthy had to go — over the objections of 96% of the GOP caucus — was that he agreed to a budget deal that relied on Democratic votes and exceeded spending caps that had been agreed on earlier. The Johnson-Schumer deal — which, if enacted, would prevent a looming government shutdown — pretty much does the same thing.

Outraged, the House Freedom Caucus condemned the deal: “Republicans promised millions of voters that we would fight to change the status quo and it is long past time to deliver.” The deal, they declared, is a “fiscal calamity.”

And they’re right.

But all of that is beside the point. I’m a big believer in the power of arguments in a democracy, but the simple fact is that arguments within Congress matter less than the raw numbers behind who is making the arguments.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered office, Democrats had huge majorities in the House: 313 seats to the GOP’s 117. In the Senate, Democrats had 59 seats, the GOP 36. In the next Congress, Democrats had 70 seats in the Senate and 322 in the House. History gives FDR the lion’s share of the credit — or, in my ideological backwater, the blame — for the New Deal. But the simple fact is that little of it would have been possible without these super-majorities in Congress, which included many Republicans who were pro-New Deal. When you can afford to lose a dozen senators of your own party and nearly a 100 representatives in the House on a given piece of legislation, it’s relatively easy to get your way. That’s simply how our system works.

Apparently, the House Freedom Caucus doesn’t get this, even though many of its members love to sing the praises of the founders and the constitutional framework they gave us.

Not only does the GOP not control the Senate or the White House, it barely controls the House. When Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) leaves Congress this month, the Republicans will have only a two-seat majority (and really just a one-seat majority, because Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana will be away from Washington until next month because of medical treatment). And contrary to what House Freedom Caucus members shout on cable TV, you can’t dictate policy outcomes just because you’re angry — or right.

Arguments still matter, but the argument Republicans need to win is at the ballot box. It doesn’t matter that House Freedom Caucus members are in safe seats and won their elections. They need Republicans in competitive seats, and lots of them, to win. That’s because millions of Americans elected Democrats to oppose Republican policies. The idea that a weak House speaker with a tiny and sharply divided majority can simply overpower the Senate and the White House is childish nonsense.

But childish nonsense is all the rage on the right these days. Indeed, many of the Republicans demanding results that Johnson is powerless to achieve are the problem. They spend much of their time behaving in ways that make it harder for Republicans to win elections in competitive districts. Johnson himself did the same thing in 2020, when he pushed an unconstitutional and factually dishonest effort on behalf of Trump’s scheme to overturn the election. Such efforts cost the GOP winnable races in 2022. Johnson’s reward? They made him speaker.

Republicans would be fools to oust Johnson for this deal — which doesn’t mean they won’t. Replacing a speaker for not being able to do things he cannot do is like replacing your dog for refusing to play the piano. Your next dog will struggle at “Chopsticks” too.

Republican firebrands have always loved to denounce the perfidy of “RINOs” — Republicans in Name Only — who don’t vote for hard-line conservative policies. RINO is an even dumber epithet today, because it now means a Republican insufficiently loyal to Trump.

Either way, if the GOP wants to achieve a fraction of the things it claims to want, it’ll need a lot more RINOs to win elections. And that will require that Republicans end their childishness.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.

Donald Trump continues demeaning and defaming anyone who disagrees with him. He repeats unproven claims that the 2020 election was “stolen.” A myriad of other inaccurate statements has apparently had a negative influence on President Biden who has joined him in the mud pit. Recall it was Biden who promised to “bring us together” – always an impossibility given the conflicting ideologies of Republicans and Democrats.

In his speech last week near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, Biden invoked George Washington as an example of a selfless man who refused to be crowned a king, resigned his commission as an Army general following the Revolutionary War, and limited himself to two terms as president. An aside – Washington engaged in an insurrection according to the definition of that word: “an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government” (dictionary.com ). Wasn’t the British government “established” over the colonies, however tyrannical it was? Some insurrections turn out better than others. The insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 – whether one believes it fits the definition or not – was still a rebellion against a legitimately established government with the express purpose of changing the election results. But I digress.

Biden’s speech shows voters that 2024 is shaping up as a contest between two lightweights pretending to be heavyweights. If Trump is elected, Biden said, America will become like Germany in the ’30s. The very future of democracy is at stake, he claimed. This is how Democrats think. Only when they win elections is the country safe.

This isn’t Biden’s first trip into the mud. During the 2012 presidential campaign Vice President Biden told a Black audience that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney “would put you all back in chains.”

Biden apparently thinks his posturing as a pugilist, rather than a pragmatist, will allow him to out-punch Trump. That isn’t likely to happen as Biden has been viewed as a nice guy. No one calls Trump nice.

Where is this corrosive language getting us? Why can’t we have a true debate over the best ways to fix our problems? Claiming your opponent would rule like a Nazi, or that the other is a crook, solves nothing.

When polls show Biden and his policies are increasingly unpopular the president has two choices. One is to change course, which he is unlikely to do because that would mean acknowledging he has been wrong. When was the last time you heard a politician admit error? The other avenue is to ignore his failed policies – from the open border, to the national debt, crime, and foreign policy – and claim if he loses to Trump, it will be Armageddon time for the country. That strategy is not working, so far.

Polls also show most Democrats and Republicans prefer neither candidate. If Trump’s upcoming criminal trials result in convictions, that might diminish his appeal except to the Kool-Aid drinkers. Perhaps Biden’s potential impeachment, if the evidence of financial wrongdoing by his family can be proven, might have the same effect on some of the president’s supporters, but this late in the game it seems unlikely.

One scenario that could assuage voter angst: Could the rules be changed at both conventions this summer so that if Trump and Biden win enough of their primaries to claim the nomination of their respective parties, the delegates could vote to replace them? One might wish leaders of both parties could get together and offer a deal that promises “we’ll not nominate our guy if you agree not to nominate your guy.” That might sound appealing to some, but it also seems equally unlikely. Too bad for America.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).

Former President Donald Trump still overwhelmingly leads the Republican pack, despite the fact that he’s facing more than 90 criminal charges and four different indictments and may, at some point, have to run from prison.

Trump voters, blinded by their fealty to him and convinced that he is the unwitting target of a grand conspiracy to take him down, are unbothered by this historic, unprecedented, and otherwise humiliating state of affairs — just as they are unbothered by his attempt at overturning a democratic election and inciting a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, his recent guilty ruling in the sexual abuse of E. Jean Carroll, his latest fraud ruling, and his near-constant praise of evil dictators who hate our country and all that we stand for…to name just a few indiscretions.

Yes, all of this is just fine with Trump voters. In fact, what would normally be categorized as a very bad year for anyone, but in particular someone running for president, was actually a banner year for Trump. He started off 2023 polling at 45.2% among Republican voters, and ended the year at 61.3%. Lucky guy.

So, despite how discomfiting that is, and how queasy it makes many of us who are not in the idolatrous cult of MAGA, it seems very likely that Trump will be the Republican nominee.

But, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis still believe they have a fighting chance, and Iowa will be the first indicator of whether that’s true or wishful thinking.

Haley in particular might be in a good position to win over independents and moderates — and with the MAGA base’s rabidity and fierce loyalty to Trump, that might be her best bet at winning the nomination.

She seems to know this ecumenically. She’s already spent much of the primary positioning herself as the saner choice, often pointing out, albeit gently, that Trump is followed by chaos. Again, this is not a thing that bothers his voters — but it does bother independents and moderates.

On abortion, she’s opted for language and policy that sounds more compassionate and reasonable than many in the Republican Party. And that may resonate in Iowa, for example, where 61% of adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, and 70% of women say the same.

And in the Hawkeye State, where a plurality of Republicans actually said that Trump’s recent attacks on immigrants — that they were “poisoning the blood” of our country — makes them more likely to vote for him, her rebuke of those remarks are far more likely to sit well with independents and moderates.

In Iowa, that’s not an insignificant voting block, where there are more registered independent voters than registered Republican voters.

And perhaps most importantly, independents are allowed to change their affiliation on caucus day to vote for Republicans if they so choose.

So, this would all seem to be very good news for Haley, right?

Yes. Except, for some reason, her Iowa ground operation isn’t going after independents.

In a bizarre twist, Haley’s team is only targeting registered Republicans, believing that’s primarily who turns out to vote in caucuses. “There really haven’t even in recent history any historical indications of campaigns going out and really targeting independents, and they also have a pretty low rate of actually showing up to participate,” says Drew Klein, senior adviser for Americans for Prosperity, the PAC that is essentially running her GOTV — get out the vote — effort in Iowa.

While that may be true, this might also be the best shot she has at narrowing that gap between her and Trump. And, considering how undyingly loyal they are to him, chasing MAGA voters seems utterly futile.

There’s some more good news for Haley. CNN announced she, DeSantis and Trump were the only candidates to qualify for its Jan. 10 debate in Des Moines, effectively setting up a DeSantis vs. Haley match since Trump won’t show up.

For her, it’s another chance to position herself as the sane Trump alternative, especially against DeSantis, who’s been running to the right of Trump on many issues.

Or, Haley could use the final Iowa debate to try, in vain, to win over MAGA voters — voters who are so devoted to Trump they say they would vote for him to run the country from prison.

Ignoring independents and moderates in Iowa seems like a very bad strategy. They’re gettable votes, while Trump voters are not.

We’ll see if the odd move helps or hurts Haley in just under two weeks. Here we go.

S.E. Cupp is the host of “S.E. Cupp Unfiltered” on CNN.

Education, like a building or a life, must have a firm foundation or whatever is built on it will collapse when storms or other challenges come.

Ivy League schools, especially, were established on a foundation of biblical principles. From its founding in 1636, Harvard’s motto has been “Veritas,” or truth. It was meant to demonstrate not only that objective truth exists, but where to find it. A proper education was thought to require attention to body, mind and spirit. Today, the body is cared for at the gym, the mind has been poisoned by propaganda forged from a secular-progressive worldview, and the spirit is more likely to be found in a bottle of beer than in anything holy.

Yale traveled the same path as Harvard. Founded in 1701, the New Haven school has as its motto “ Lux et veritas,” or “light and truth.” It was believed by Yale’s founders that the essentials of proper learning should include the light of a liberal education (liberal meant something different then) and the truth could be found in New England’s religious tradition.

It was the same for Princeton and Dartmouth. Princeton, founded in 1746, subscribed to this motto: DEI SUB NUMINE VIGET, which means ” Under God’s power she flourishes.” Princeton seminary, built on a foundation of biblical truth, went liberal (in the bad sense of the word) with professors questioning the authority of Scripture.

Dartmouth, founded in 1769, had as its motto “ Vox clamantis in deserto,” which means “a voice crying in the wilderness.” It is a biblical reference to John the Baptist who introduced Jesus Christ to the world. While the school was originally established to educate Native Americans in Christian theology and what was called the English way of life, the university primarily trained congregationalist ministers during its early history before it gradually secularized like so many others, following the spirit of the age.

These and many other once great universities have departed from their founding principles and what once defined a well-rounded education. For this and other reasons, college degrees are seemingly not worth what they once were and that is why – along with increasing costs – many young people are pursuing other avenues, including trade schools.

Forbes magazine reported: “ Nationwide, undergraduate college enrollment dropped 8% from 2019 to 2022, with declines even after returning to in-person classes, according to data from the National Student Clearinghouse. The slide in the college-going rate since 2018 is the steepest on record, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

American public schools have followed the path of these universities, incorporating subjects that have little to do with a proper education, and in too many instances indoctrinating young people with a secular progressive worldview that produces votes for Democrats.

Need proof to support that assertion? According to Pew Research Center,“ In 2022, voters with a college degree or more education favored Democratic candidates while those with no college degree preferred Republicans – continuing a long-standing trend in polarization among American voters by education.”

If you are a conservative parent, you would be wise not to send your child to one of these colleges and expect them to return with the values and beliefs you taught them. If you’re a liberal, sending your kids to these schools will simply reinforce what you and they already believe, which is not a real education.

Gay’s resignation will make no difference without a fundamental restructuring of what is taught. The same goes for other institutions of “higher learning.”

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I’ve Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America” (HumanixBooks).